Phi for All

! Moderator Note We're done with this. If you've read 8 pages of people telling you why science doesn't equal religion and can still make this statement, it's clear you aren't listening, you're just preaching. If you mention this in a mainstream science section, it will be off-topic and you will be suspended. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note We don't do that, either. I can certainly close the thread if there is no more learning to be done here.

! Moderator Note Mehmet Saygin, we don't delete threads, ever. Please stop requesting this via the Report feature.

God(s) are supernatural by the definition of science, which is a methodology used to observe the natural world. The much better question is why are they so often mistakenly joined? Speaking of mistakenly joined, I hope you aren't here just to promote your YouTube channel. That's against the rules. This is a science discussion site.

! Moderator Note We aren't your marketing tool. This is a science discussion forum. If you want to start a thread in Speculations to discuss your non-mainstream ideas, feel free to do so, and please support them with as much evidence as possible. No more advertising your website. You can copy/paste from it to support yourself, but don't link to it . All discussion should take place here. Gotta close this thread.

True. I see two paths: 1. You take the time to learn the same terminology everyone else here took the time to learn, or 2. Everybody else takes the time to learn how you define things. ?

I've been wanting to share this for a while now. Our friends at Secure World Foundation, a non-profit dedicated to promoting the peaceful use of outer space, have prepared a fantastic document for those who want to know more about current human activity in our nearby space. It's a non-partisan, non-profit, global perspective to give participants and observers an informed view of Earth's outer space situation. You can download a free PDF copy from the SWF website here. Your information is private. You can put "ScienceForums.net" for your affiliation, if you like. Feel free to share this as well. It's important to know what's going on over our heads, as well as keeping our orbital paths clear of debris, and space travel as safe as we can make it.

! Moderator Note Unfortunately for those in the philosocopter, the clouds cleared to show a looming mountainside. No amount of hands on the collective could pull up in time. BOOM.

! Moderator Note Sorry, no commercial advertising allowed. This is a science discussion forum. Please stick around for the discussions, but please don't push traffic to your website. That's not what we're here for. Thread closed.

Trump has been waffling back and forth about Syria for five baffling years. If this doesn't show you how little you can trust this man, probably nothing will.

Lasse, it's very difficult to discuss your ideas when you mis-use words that have a defined meaning in science, like faith, logic, application, nature, reality, etc. Wouldn't it be easier if you learned the proper terminology instead of all of us learning how you have interpreted their meanings and definitions? Most of this thread is people correcting you about your insistence on using the word "faith" to mis-describe the way you view scientific knowledge. Science is all about methodologies and shared definitions, and approaching knowledge in very specific ways in order to reach the most trustworthy conclusions. Please listen and learn from these wonderful members who are trying to help you. It's a VERY IMPORTANT distinction, the difference between explanations you trust because you can know exactly how they were derived, and explanations you have to take on faith because there is no evidence so you must simply believe. Please stop trying to make them equal.

Oh, well done, you! Thanks very much! I wonder if Mr Lee had any clue at the time that he was building such an awesome birdhouse? These fancy businessmen and their offshore assets! Last time I went kayaking I saw a guy with a cooler in its own inflatable rig being towed behind him, like a shadow yacht. Don't know if he made it or bought it. I'm also picturing you in a life vest holding cans of beer the way a hunter's vest holds ammo. This is just all kinds of cool, Endy, thanks again!

! Moderator Note Agreed. And since you failed spectacularly to provide support for your arguments after repeated requests, you may not start another thread on this topic. Thread closed.

He told you exactly what he didn't get when he quoted that part of your post (it was the part about "I can not comprehend how could not time be relative in any point of space in the Universe"). So yes, you CAN know what he doesn't get. You don't need to know why. Nobody asked about why. The important question, the part you didn't respond to, was So... Could you re-phrase "I can not comprehend how could not time be relative in any point of space in the Universe"? Say it a different way? Don't just repeat it, because we're having trouble understanding it the way you've said it.

! Moderator Note No more personal attacks. We attack ideas here, not people.

I think you're wrong for the reasons I've already (re)stated. I'll stop short of using allcaps. Why reduce what isn't there? My fear is that you're trying to reduce the scientific aspects of science with your "clarifications".

Faith is supposed to be a strong belief in the supernatural that needs no evidence. Taking something on faith literally means you don't bother to check on it, you just believe it wholeheartedly. You can choose to take science on faith, but it's real strength lies in your ability to learn the way a theory developed, what methodologies were used, and you can drill down as deep as you want, all the way to individual bits of data, in order to satisfy yourself that an explanation is trustworthy. Trust in science is the opposite of faith in religion. Asking if science can be your religion is like asking if you can call your chess club buddies "gang members".

The BIG difference is that with science you could actually learn the information yourself. That's the opposite of faith. Again, we're not searching for answers, we're searching for the best supported explanations, the ones we can trust to be correct. Historically, that trust has not been misplaced. And if you did, you would be erasing the strength of its meaning. Science is NOT a faith, and it should absolutely be considered differently. To call it a faith weakens science. Is that what you want?

A theory doesn't have "proof". It has lots of supportive evidence that keeps being added to as scientists try to find evidence that falsifies the original hypothesis. Eventually, when all the evidence supports and none shows it's false, scientists start to call it a theory. If we called it an "answer", we might stop looking, and that's not science. A theory is continually being challenged.

You may feel incapable of that line of thought because it's fallacious. It begs the question that the middle ground is always the best solution, or that placating everyone will be the best resolution. Sometimes you just need to abolish slavery, even though it's not the middle ground. I tend to agree, and then I think about what is needed to drag us away from the extremes we find ourselves in. Will a gentle tack to port be enough to correct years of poor navigation? Or does the US need an extreme move towards liberal agendas like education, welfare, and healthcare? The liberals I know try not to operate so emotionally. They leave that to the right.

I still feel there's a big problem with these labels the way you use them: "In my conservative opinion, we should have smaller government, and I want to vote to outsource some work done by government employees to a private firm. This will shrink the government." "In my liberal opinion, the government employees are more focused on the work they do and less on making a profit. Also, a private firm charges more, so while using them shrinks the size of the government, we actually end up spending more money." People shouldn't start out with an opinion about a project or problem. If they can't get over this idea that some don't "deserve" to be here, we can't move forward as a society, imo.

And the real fact is that the majority of conservatives would be more prosperous if many of the liberal agendas were realized, like universal healthcare, consumer protection, more effective public schooling, alternative energies, less corporate welfare, and so on. It's only those who are wealthy enough to afford what the rest of us need to pool our resources to own who profit from today's conservatism. We tell them we can get $3 loaves of bread for $1 each if we invest in 10 of them, and they tell us we're spending too much on bread, so they buy a $3 loaf, spend $3 on border security, and give the baker $4 for being a job provider.

I think the reason is that "balance" sounds reasonable, but can be loosely applied where it shouldn't. Trying to come to a middle ground between liberal and conservative on a specific issue isn't automatically going to give the best results. Sometimes, to be truly effective, a liberal decision doesn't need to be held back by too much conservative concern. The NASA projects are easy examples. You take every precaution you can, but in the end you're going to make some wild, unprecedented, extremely progressive decisions to do something no other Earth creature could do. It's not going to be a 50/50 mix, or a balance. For those projects, we needed fiscal and social liberalism to vastly overshadow efforts to "cut back", "be realistic", or "stop wasting taxpayer dollars on science fiction". I think it's a mistake to look at any problem with a jaundiced eye going in. We do that in the US when we automatically assume spending less on welfare is better/more conservative, when spending more might save us much more money on the justice system. Every problem is different, and needs to be addressed on its own merits. Not everything should be about profit, not everything should be about spending less. Trump is not "most smart", but he's wealthy enough that he will never need a museum, or a public park or swimming pool, or universal healthcare, or a retirement fund. He's also one of the extremely wealthy that thinks you shouldn't have access to any of these things if you can't personally afford them, so he doesn't want to pay taxes towards them. It's/he's really that simple.

It sometimes gets the teachers stressed out when the system is set up so that a minimal amount of effort results in a passing grade, yet students continue to get Fs. If you turn in the homework, attend the classes, participate in class projects, do the online work the teacher assigns, and still flunk all the quizzes, tests, and finals, you won't get an F. Sooooo, your argument is a strawman. You argue the teacher expects perfection (which is easy to argue against), when in reality the teacher wants you to do at least the minimum to pass (which is much harder to defend - why aren't you doing the minimal work?).

That is such a broken chain of reasoning! You link to a jobsite for jobs in economics, and claim SOME teachers of economics make a living teaching, and you think that, plus Trump's income means he's smarter than the teachers. Your argument tries fallaciously to equate the achievements of "some" with "all", and your extreme reach to this conclusion is invalid. I've been far more successful in terms of money than many of the teachers in my life, but I would NEVER claim to be smarter than they are/were. What an absurd idea! And why would you come to a science discussion site and disrespect people who read?! Book worms are using their time more wisely than you, sir!